Exactly. I don't mind if people don't like the film, you can't please everyone; It's impossible. That said, calling someone stupid because they like the film, or alluding to the idea that they're intellectually bankrupt because they enjoy films that don't require 50 years of canon to appreciate, is just ridiculous. I realize there are fans that are extreme, and take their enjoyment of Star Trek to nigh religious levels, but that doesn't make them better because they do.

I've been a Star Trek fan since I was 4 years old. That was 1984. I've loved many incarnations of Star Trek since then. In my early teens, I was a hardcore Trek fan, but even then I didn't treat it like a religion, or some kind of obsession. That's the worst thing you can do to a franchise, because it scares casual fans away. Zealotry serves no good purpose.

Thu May 30, 2013 12:03 am

Sean

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

And it's not as if Star Trek is in danger of losing its nerd cred any time soon. I mean, the Lord of the Rings films are some of the most lucrative movies of all time, and yet there are still hundreds of thousands of fans out there who aren't just casual movie-goers. The same goes with Harry Potter, Star Wars, James Bond, Batman, and Avengers. All mainstream movie franchises that are held in particularly-high regard by a certain breed of film buff.

Thu May 30, 2013 2:42 pm

nologo

Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:16 amPosts: 117

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

J.W. Allen wrote:

oakenshield32 wrote:

Quote:

*watches as some guy stands and claps in an empty room*

Yawn. You just got owned in one of the most brilliant smackdowns I have seen in ages and this is your reply? Oh well I can now see why Star Trek looks so amazing to you. If only everyone had that kind of scrubbed faced simplicity the movie studios would never have to make another movie with originality or intelligence again.

Oh, my. You're too cute! You honestly felt that was a "brilliant smackdown"? It was nothing more than a rant over the way things aren't how they used to be.

What...? lol

It's kind of galling that the whole point is missed here...Abrams resetting the story was so he could explore new ones...instead, they play it safe, EXPLOSIONS! YAY! And can't get over the past themselves and "how it used to be"...

It's superhuman Khan.....that deserves some criticism...we're debating a film here, not blowing sunshine up the filmmakers jeffery's tube...

I know you want to ignore the fact I said it was a fun ride...but I have taken your pathologically specific conflated plot post and poked problems in it that warranted criticism...surprised it offended you so...

Fri May 31, 2013 5:14 am

Ken

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pmPosts: 1728

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Can we get a forum macro that detects inappropriate uses of ellipses and automatically replaces them with a miniaturized version of this gif?

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

Fri May 31, 2013 5:24 am

nologo

Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:16 amPosts: 117

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Sean wrote:

Gwaihir wrote:

More proof that there's no pleasing everyone: I've seen the films Sean didn't list disparaged by Trekkies too. The Wrath of Khan and First Contact for being Revenge Trek, The Voyage Home for being Comedy Trek, The Undiscovered Country for being Political Trek or Star Trek does Shakespeare, etc. As in, they're not Real Trek(^tm). For some people, if you don't do exactly what they expect when the movie is entitled Star Trek, they don't like it. Abrams is certainly not alone among Trek directors in having viewers who disliked his film(s).

Perfectly stated.

In the same way that Skyfall failed to please die-hard Bond fans, the newer Trek films are being unfairly disparaged by old-school Trekkies. There's just no pleasing everyone.

For the record, Abrams Trek is nowhere near as bad as the Star Wars prequels. Not even close. People should stop comparing them.

What are your thoughts on Abrams' attitude towards the Trek series? Frustrating or refreshing?

"It always felt too philosophical for me." -J.J. Abrams

Of course my take down of this film may put me in that "old school" category, but I liked Abrams first Trek. It had its share of impatience, Bayish cuts and shakey cam, but the framework of the origin story, and the timeline "reset" was intriguing...and that is where I really think he dropped his balls. He didn't do anything with it but remake Wrath of Khan, so how is it unfair to disparage that?

The writers joked that they could have used "Star Trek: Transformers 4, it's available", if only they could see the irony of that statement

Maybe they do?

Fri May 31, 2013 5:36 am

mrguinness

Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 amPosts: 384Location: NJ

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Ken wrote:

Can we get a forum macro that detects inappropriate uses of ellipses and automatically replaces them with a miniaturized version of this gif?

How about inappropriate uses of Lens Flare instead?

Fri May 31, 2013 9:23 am

Gwaihir

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:14 amPosts: 283

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

My review of Into Darkness: Entertaining, fun, exciting, well-acted, but an anticlimactic ending keeps it from ascending to the upper echelon of Star Trek films. That and the

is a good question, the opening sequence is great, and I'm a bit surprised that the portrayal of religion in it hasn't been more controversial. One of the best scenes in the film follows, Pike's dressing down of Kirk. Spock's role in this is really well done, too. The terrorist attack is one of the darker scenes in any of the films. I enjoyed seeing futuristic London too, for the most part San Francisco is the only Earth city shown in Trek. The plot gets rolling here too, with Kirk motivated by revenge to seek out John Harrison in retaliation for his terrorism. The debates that arise on the mission are intriguing and (in Scott's case in particular) have surprising outcomes. The action really gets going once they track Harrison down. The Klingon fight and Uhura's attempt to reason with them are very well done. From there it's pretty much wall-to-wall action as Kirk tries to balance his orders with his morals and concern for his crew's safety. The ending is anticlimactic though. Ending in a foot chase and fistfight doesn't really work, nor does the "Can you beam someone down?" running gag. Kinda makes one wonder why they didn't just all beam down and trap him that way. There are other nits to pick of course, like how fast they travel to and from the Klingon homeworld, but they didn't bother me during the viewing.

The acting is great overall. The returning cast is more comfortable in their roles, and each of the main crew members gets at least one moment to shine. I think Pine's biggest asset as Kirk is the humor he brings to the role, and he does this without sacrificing his dignity. Comedy was not a strength of any of the other actors who've sat in the captain's chair. Having Spock and Uhura in a relationship adds another layer to the characters that gets mined for comedic gold a few times. (Kirk: "What is that even like?" One of the biggest laughs of the film from me.) Cumberbatch is excellent, making the villain sympathetic at times and intensely evil at others. Peter Weller has a memorable turn as well.

The return of the transwarp beaming shows the writers didn't treat plot devices in Star Trek merely as plot devices (though it's a bit of a can of worms still), Section 31!!! (indeed this film felt more like Deep Space Nine in tone than the other Trek series), Tribbles!!!, the exchange in the death scene in which Kirk and Spock admit to each other that they did what the other would have done in that situation. In fact if it weren't for the "KHAAAAAAAAN!" that scene would have been near perfect. I prefer the danger that requires a sacrifice to repair the engines in Into Darkness over the one in Wrath of Khan. After all there's more immediacy and excitement in having the ship in freefall as opposed to being not fast enough to escape a time bomb.

The epilogue ends on the right note though, and hopefully the writers will build off this and show deep space exploration in the next film(s). It would be a great way to honor TOS while also going in a new direction.

3 Stars

Fri May 31, 2013 12:40 pm

J.W. Allen

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

nologo wrote:

J.W. Allen wrote:

Oh, my. You're too cute! You honestly felt that was a "brilliant smackdown"? It was nothing more than a rant over the way things aren't how they used to be.

What...? lol

It's kind of galling that the whole point is missed here...Abrams resetting the story was so he could explore new ones...instead, they play it safe, EXPLOSIONS! YAY! And can't get over the past themselves and "how it used to be"...

It's superhuman Khan.....that deserves some criticism...we're debating a film here, not blowing sunshine up the filmmakers jeffery's tube...

I know you want to ignore the fact I said it was a fun ride...but I have taken your pathologically specific conflated plot post and poked problems in it that warranted criticism...surprised it offended you so...

Oh, please don't let me stand in the way of your cleverness.

Fri May 31, 2013 1:04 pm

calvero

Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pmPosts: 1388

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Quote:

After briefly looking at other writers to pen the next installment, Paramount has gone back to Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci to write the next “Star Trek” movie.

J.J. Abrams is in negotiations to return as a producer but will not direct this pic — since he’s directing the next “Star Wars” film, the studio is forced to look elsewhere.

Kurtzman and Orci penned the last two pics, which have grossed more than $800 million worldwide.

The studio had looked at possibly giving the assignment to another writing duo, including “X-Men: First Class” scribes Ashley Edward Miller and Zack Stentz, but ultimately went back to Kurtzman and Orci for the job.

After briefly looking at other writers to pen the next installment, Paramount has gone back to Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci to write the next “Star Trek” movie.

J.J. Abrams is in negotiations to return as a producer but will not direct this pic — since he’s directing the next “Star Wars” film, the studio is forced to look elsewhere.

Kurtzman and Orci penned the last two pics, which have grossed more than $800 million worldwide.

The studio had looked at possibly giving the assignment to another writing duo, including “X-Men: First Class” scribes Ashley Edward Miller and Zack Stentz, but ultimately went back to Kurtzman and Orci for the job.

Very disappointing news (about a new director). I hope this doesn't go downhill like X-Men did after losing Director Bryan Singer (after X2). All I can say is, "Please don't let it be Roland Emmerich. Please don't let it be Roland Emmerich."

Tue Aug 06, 2013 6:05 pm

Ken

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pmPosts: 1728

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Abrams is out of the director's chair?

The floor is now open to blind speculation and pie-in-the-sky wishlisting. Go!

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

Tue Aug 06, 2013 6:39 pm

Vexer

Auteur

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pmPosts: 3850Location: Zion, IL

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Ken wrote:

Abrams is out of the director's chair?

The floor is now open to blind speculation and pie-in-the-sky wishlisting. Go!

I don't really have a particular preference for who I want to direct the film, I don't see Emmerich doing it, but I wouldn't object if he did. I think David Twohy would be a great choice.

Tue Aug 06, 2013 6:44 pm

ilovemovies

Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 amPosts: 2271

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

I read over at joblo.com that the leading contender is the guy who directed G.I. Joe: Retaliation. I'm not sure how to feel about this. On one hand, I did enjoy G.I. Joe: Retaliation and I thought he did a great job with the action scenes. But on the other hand, he just doesn't seem suited to do a Star Trek movie.

Whatever the case may be, I'm really hoping for the best. I've been a life long fan of this franchise and I really want to see it rebound from the incredibly disappointing Into Darkness.

Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:33 am

Vexer

Auteur

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pmPosts: 3850Location: Zion, IL

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

ilovemovies wrote:

I read over at joblo.com that the leading contender is the guy who directed G.I. Joe: Retaliation. I'm not sure how to feel about this. On one hand, I did enjoy G.I. Joe: Retaliation and I thought he did a great job with the action scenes. But on the other hand, he just doesn't seem suited to do a Star Trek movie.

Whatever the case may be, I'm really hoping for the best. I've been a life long fan of this franchise and I really want to see it rebound from the incredibly disappointing Into Darkness.

He's certainly an interesting choice, and I remember many people doubted Abrams at the time considering his lone feature film before Star Trek was Mission: Impossible III.

Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:46 am

ilovemovies

Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 amPosts: 2271

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

I never doubted Abrams ability. He did a great job with Mission: Impossible 3 but more importantly for his superb direction of two of the best television pilots ever made: Alias and Lost.

Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:11 am

Vexer

Auteur

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pmPosts: 3850Location: Zion, IL

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

ilovemovies wrote:

I never doubted Abrams ability. He did a great job with Mission: Impossible 3 but more importantly for his superb direction of two of the best television pilots ever made: Alias and Lost.

I didn't doubt him either(though I did find Lost immensely overrated), nor do I doubt John Chu.

Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:16 am

Ken

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pmPosts: 1728

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

It is my opinion that Star Trek doesn't need an action director. It needs an adventure director. Find someone who cares more about the journey across the stars and its implications rather than staging flashy space dogfights and you've got a fighting chance at legitimacy. The stellar cast is in place. The backstory is out of the way. I'm ready for some real Star Trek.

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

Thu Aug 08, 2013 5:21 am

Jeff Wilder

Director

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pmPosts: 1475

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

My choice: Bryan Singer.

He's an avowed Star Trek fan. As has been proven by the first two X-Men he can direct adventure and action well. He understands how to tell a story and to get good performances out of actors. The franchise needs a truly good director not a merely competent one and Singer fits the bill. Not to mention this could be a chance for a rebound after Jack The Ginat Slayer.

_________________This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

It is my opinion that Star Trek doesn't need an action director. It needs an adventure director. Find someone who cares more about the journey across the stars and its implications rather than staging flashy space dogfights and you've got a fighting chance at legitimacy. The stellar cast is in place. The backstory is out of the way. I'm ready for some real Star Trek.

Like

Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:56 pm

thered47

Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pmPosts: 203

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Ken wrote:

It is my opinion that Star Trek doesn't need an action director. It needs an adventure director. Find someone who cares more about the journey across the stars and its implications rather than staging flashy space dogfights and you've got a fighting chance at legitimacy. The stellar cast is in place. The backstory is out of the way. I'm ready for some real Star Trek.

I think Star Trek: Nemesis is the best argument to support what you just said. The producers repeatedly talk about on the DVD special features how the reason they hired Stuart Baird was because of his background directing action movies.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum